Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, October

25, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Singh: I have two sets of introductions.

We have the representatives of the First Nations Education Steering Committee in the

House today. We have Tyrone McNeil, Debbie Jeffrey and Jan Haugen. I really want to

thank them for all their hard work and the strong partnership they have with my ministry,

Education and Childcare.

Along with them I have some amazing staff from my ministry also present in the House.

We have Choe Nicholls, Jennifer McCrea, Denise Augustine, Dave Duerksen, Francis Recalma,

Kristen Brewer, Catherine Jarawka, Julia Hincks, Kelly Farish, Jonathan Foweraker

and Brad Baker.

I really want to take this moment to thank this amazing staff that I have. They support

me every day, make my work shine and are just an amazing team that both myself and

the Minister of State for Child Care have in our ministry.

Hon. S. Robinson: Today here in the gallery, we have Suzanne Jolly. She is here joining us. She became

known to me through my husband about 15 years ago. She's a multimedia specialist at

North Island College and does some freelance multimedia consulting and independent

film production.

She has directed and produced two seasons of Where the Wind Meets the Tide, stories about people doing ocean-based jobs in north Vancouver Island, and she's

a solo back-country motor biker, ocean kayaker, as well as yoga instructor and a good

friend of my husband's. She's here to take in question period today.

Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

E. Ross: I've got quite a few guests today, very rare.

We've got the mayor of Terrace here today — a frequent visitor, it seems. This time

he's here to meet both sides of the House in terms of the infrastructure crisis that

he's experiencing in Terrace right now.

I've also got Matt Buchholz. He's actually working with McLeod Lake on their projects

proposed for the territory.

Some very, very special guests are Kelly LaVallie and Sydney LaVallie. Her late husband

is very closely associated with the success of LNG in Kitimat and a very close, dear

friend of the Haisla people, my band, as well as a very close and dear friend of mine

personally, so I'd like them to feel welcome.

Also, last but not least, Gary Ley. Gary Ley's there as well. A very good friend of

mine for the last ten, 15 years, and another person who is very instrumental in the

success of LNG for the last 15 years here in B.C.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

T. Stone: I am thrilled to rise today and welcome three guests that I think we're honoured to

have with us today.

[1:40 p.m.]

In the gallery is Craig Thomson, who is the president of the British Columbia–Yukon

Legion Command here in British Columbia. He also happens to live in Kamloops, so he's

a good friend up in Kamloops.

He's joined today by Dave Sinclair, who's an honorary president with the legion. I

think most members, if not all of this House, know Dave very, very well and the incredible

advocacy work that he has done on a range of files.

Also joining them is Michelle Courtney, who's the relatively new, not entirely new

but relatively new, executive director of the legion.

I had a wonderful meeting with them today as they updated us on a series of housing

projects that they have on the go in different parts of the province.

I'd ask that the House please make these three very distinguished guests fully welcome

here in British Columbia's Legislature.

Hon. R. Fleming: I want to make an introduction of a different sort, with the indulgence of the House

this afternoon. It's really to introduce….

Many members of the House will know individuals employed at Helijet airways, the company,

and, in particular, the two pilots yesterday who helped us avoid talking about a transportation

tragedy, which was narrowly avoided.

Those employees will remain nameless for now, but to call them heroes under that situation

would be no overstatement. That's, in fact, what they are. They saved 12 lives yesterday

and had to respond to a situation where they had no idea what had hit the aircraft.

It turned out it was a lightning strike that damaged the aircraft significantly. The

fact that it was able to fly is a miracle.

The two pilots, one of whom has 23 years experience flying around British Columbia,

had the skill, the composure and the ability to rescue that situation and save all

who were aboard. I would like the House to recognize that and to thank everybody who

works for that company who went through a very harrowing experience.

I knew one of the passengers who, actually, was coming to meet me, and that individual,

who's a dear friend, was very badly shaken up, as you would understand. All the passengers

were. But we are very fortunate that they are today reflecting on what they lived

through yesterday and that everybody is alive.

So to the pilots at Helijet airways and to everyone working at the company through

a difficult situation, I'd like the House to recognize that this afternoon.

S. Chant: This afternoon on the precinct, not necessarily in here, because they're talking with

everybody and talking with the general public outside…. I'd like to acknowledge the

folks that are here from the registered disability savings plan group and also the

Public Guardian and Trustee, who are outside in a booth at the base of the Legislature

stairs, telling people about the things they do and the services and support they

offer to people in British Columbia.

And I just want to say, I think, from all of us, thank you to them for the work that

they do, and thank you to them for coming and advising us of what those services are

so that we can tell our constituents.

Hon. R. Fleming: I do have one more introduction. I see they're with us now. It is a group of students,

grade 10, from the fabulous Reynolds secondary school social studies class. They're

doing their government unit this semester, and they're with their teacher, Alecia

Jones. It's the French immersion class from Reynolds.

I understand my beloved Roadrunners soccer team are having a very good season, both

the boys and girls teams as well — equally as important as the academic material that

they're studying this afternoon.

Would the House make them most welcome today.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

R. Singh presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

School Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. R. Singh: I move that the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 40, the School Amendment Act, 2023, which will make

amendments to the B.C. School Act to fulfil ministry commitments made in the B.C.

Tripartite Education Agreement and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act action plan.

These changes requested by First Nations have been co-developed with the First Nations

Education Steering Committee and in direct consultation with B.C. First Nations including

treaty First Nations.

The changes in this bill are intended to begin to address the systemic barriers faced

by on-reserve students across B.C. and to support all Indigenous learners within the

province. These important steps along the path of reconciliation will respect First

Nation authority and decision-making over the education of their children.

While we have made significant changes in education that are positively impacting

Indigenous students, there is still more work to do. The changes in this bill are

especially important because they require boards of education to involve local First

Nations and Indigenous people in making decisions about education programs and services

provided to Indigenous children.

An important step in reconciliation, this bill will provide mechanisms to boards of

education to have effective relationships with First Nations, improving the educational

experience and outcome of students in the public school system.

The new provisions introduce three components: a co-developed provincial model, local

education agreement that will apply where a First Nation wants one; a requirement

for every school district to have an Indigenous education council with a focus on

local First Nations; and First Nations' right to make their own choice of school for

on-reserve and in-community students.

The province is committed to continue to work together with First Nations, treaty

First Nations and Indigenous people to improve public education and educational outcomes

for Indigenous students.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Singh: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40, School Amendment Act, 2023, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RICHMOND SECONDARY GRAD COMMITTEE

H. Yao: Car wash fundraiser — not a typical topic for the chamber. However, I want to take

this opportunity to express how impressed I was with the Richmond Secondary grad committee's

hard work.

First of all, I want to thank them for allowing me to join them for a car wash while

raising money for the grad program. When I first arrived, it was windy, chilly and

a bit wet. However, there were already at least 20 to 30 students ready to go. While

the sponsor teachers were busy gathering supplies, the students were proactively working

together to set up a car wash. From taping signs to preparing all the equipment, they

enthusiastically prepared themselves to welcome the customers.

The morning had a slow start. Students had to dance and sing to keep the spirit high

and to fight the cold. So I messaged a few elected officials, hoping they would show

a little love to our grad class. I want to take this moment to express my gratitude

to Coun. Carol Day, Coun. Chak Au, school trustee Debbie Tablotney, MP Wilson Miao

and MP Parm Bains.

Of course, as the day went on, more parents, teachers, neighbours, even students arrived

to show support. I want to thank everyone for showing love to our Richmond Secondary

School's grad committee, for their support of the successful fundraiser.

While washing cars, it was hard not to get wet and dirty. I remember vividly that

I accidentally splashed some dirty and soapy water on a student. I quickly tried to

apologize. Instead of responding with frustration, the student said no apologies were

necessary. They were all there to work hard and expected to get dirty. His response

was both exceptionally mature and thoughtful.

Little details like this showed me that students truly demonstrated leadership potential

as they diligently washed cars while embracing the love and gratitude from the community.

I was truly honoured to wash cars alongside them, and I will take this opportunity

to say congratulations to the Richmond Secondary grad committee.

[1:50 p.m.]

LNG DEVELOPMENT IN HAISLA NATION

AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF DAVE LAVALLIE

E. Ross: In 2004, my band, the Haisla Nation Council, started exploring and advocating for

LNG to be exported to the world. It was a massive undertaking, and we couldn't find

examples in B.C. to learn from. We had good leaders and strategies but found that

we needed more for a rapidly changing world. We hired good staff, good lawyers, good

advisors, and then Dave LaVallie joined our team.

As we melded pieces of our past with our plans for the future, it became clear that

we needed a technical leader to work alongside our political leadership. Dave LaVallie

became that leader, and to say that he did an impressive job is an understatement.

It wasn't easy to start this initiative, given the opposition to LNG that lasted up

until 2017, but we stuck with it on principles and facts.

Dave took his direction from our council but understood the pressures that we faced

in our community, in the region and in the province, and he addressed those issues

head on. He was our interface for regulatory bodies, industry and the financing world.

More importantly, he kept Haisla objectives and goals as his main priority.

I've said many times in this House how my band successfully turned the corner in terms

of independence and addressing our own issues on our own terms, and we succeeded beyond

our wildest dreams.

There are many people responsible for our success, but not many people know how much

gratitude is owed to Dave LaVallie specifically. I was there and saw his incredible

expertise in action and recognize him as one of the key people who knew how to reconcile

economic development with the issues that many First Nations face today.

I am grateful for what he did for my people, and I miss him as a friend, because Dave

passed away on August 15 this year. He is lovingly remembered and sorely missed by

his wife, Kelly; his children — Megan, Samantha, Dawson, Jessica and Sydney; his brand-new

granddaughter, Scarlett; his brother, Darald; his nephew, Ben; and his niece, Sadie.

Rest in peace, Dave LaVallie.

IGNITE A DREAM FUNDRAISING EVENT

M. Starchuk: The Surrey Fire Fighters Charitable Society was founded in 1994 with the mission to

provide charitable programs that benefit the citizens of our community and to assist

other charities within the community that have similar goals and objectives.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to know, 1994 also happens to be the birth year of the member

for Langford–Juan de Fuca, if we didn't feel old enough today.

I'm proud to stand in this House as one of the founding directors of the charitable

society. The program I'm going to talk about is Ignite a Dream. As background, 11

years ago, three firefighters responded to a call involving a young person, which

resulted in a tragic ending.

Witnessing the potential of young minds go unrealized due to life circumstances, the

Ignite a Dream event was born with the primary goal of raising funds to support the

education of Surrey's youth, creating opportunities for high school graduates who

have overcome significant challenges to pursue their post-secondary education.

In 2016, this event, in collaboration with Kwantlen Polytechnic University…. It transformed

the modern Cloverdale campus into an elegant space featuring an evening of wine —

craft — tasting, culinary delights, live music and a silent auction. This year's event

had some of the Surrey MLAs in attendance. That took place on September 23. This year's

Ignite a Dream events saw the proceeds donated to KPU to enable the creation of ten

$4,500 Ignite a Dream awards to be distributed to deserving KPU students in the fall

of 2024.

Ignite a Dream is more than an event. It is a promise of brighter futures, a commitment

to breaking down barriers to education and the celebration of the potential that resides

within all of our youth.

Next year's Ignite a Dream event will see another group of students begin their journeys

to a rewarding career of their choice, and I hope to see some of those familiar faces

there again next year.

PRINCE GEORGE HOSPICE

PALLIATIVE CARE SOCIETY

S. Bond: Prince George and our region are blessed to be served by the Prince George Hospice

Palliative Care Society. The Prince George Hospice Society has been providing grief

and bereavement services to the community of Prince George since 1987.

[1:55 p.m.]

The first guest to Rotary Hospice House was admitted in May of 1995. The standalone

Hospice House was the first in B.C. Since that time, the dedicated hospice team has

been committed to leading hospice care initiatives, both provincially and nationally,

and they have done just that.

The goal has always been to design programs in response to the needs of our community

and to be leaders in the sector. Their latest initiative would bring home hospice

care to Prince George.

Why is this such an important program? Because we know, when asked, that 70 percent

of Canadians wish to die in their own home. For many people that make that choice,

for a variety of reasons they end up in an emergency room and pass away in a hospital.

Prince George Hospice Palliative Care Society wants to change that by providing hospice

care at home. Currently, the only other hospice in B.C. which provides that care is

the Victoria Hospice.

A lot of work has been done to consult, plan and coordinate, including garnering support

from a multidisciplinary, multi-organizational stakeholder group. There has also been

alignment with the UNBC Centre for Technology Adoption for Aging in the North to ensure

that there is virtual access for family, friends and medical professionals to be in

regular contact.

Donna Flood and her team remind me that Prince George Hospice has for decades been

offering people a place to die with dignity and compassion, surrounded by their family

and friends. Our family and so many others have experienced that firsthand.

As we look for ways to reduce pressure on our health care system and provide people

with the best possible care at the end of their lives, supporting this program should

be something that all of us welcome and take action to make a reality.

POLE-RAISING CEREMONY AND HIGHWAY

OF TEARS SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

J. Rice: This past Saturday, just outside Prince Rupert along the infamous Highway of Tears,

I had the honour of witnessing a pole raising commemorating missing and murdered Indigenous

women, girls and two- spirit people. The foggy morning started out as a sombre event,

but through the sounds of drums, singing and protocol, the sun came up and shined

a beautiful light on the pole as it was raised in the right way.

This also marked an important milestone between government and Rogers Communications

to fill cellular gaps along the highway, following one of the 33 recommendations of

the Highway of Tears Symposium report.

Improving safety along this corridor is an important commitment our government has

made and has been something I've been advocating for since I was first elected in

2013. In fact, my first question in question period was in regards to making the Highway

of Tears a safer place. Thankfully, we've come a long way since then.

This pole is not only commemorating and honouring lives lost and still missing, but

it is sending a clear message to all of us: no more stolen sisters. The pole was carved

in great detail and care by artist Mike Dangeli and his team. It stands ten feet tall

and is a sister pole to one near Kitsumkalum, which was also raised for the same reasons.

Following the pole raising, a feast was held at the Jim Ciccone Civic Centre, where

local cultural traditions, food and speeches were shared.

I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague the Minister of Citizens' Services for

coming all the way out to the North Coast to mark this important event. A huge shout-out

and thanks to event organizers and volunteers: Symbia Barnaby, Reid Skelton-Morven,

Arlene Roberts, Murray Smith, Tricia Barnaby, Jennifer Campeau, Bill White, Matthew

Kloepper, the team at the Ts'msyen Prosperity Society and Indian Residential School

Survivors Society, not to mention Rogers Communications for taking on the last gap

of cellular service between Prince George and Prince Rupert along the Highway of Tears.

Wai Wah .

RICHMOND ADDICTION

SERVICES SOCIETY

T. Wat: Addiction is a complex issue that affects people from all walks of life. It's not

limited by age, gender or social status. It's something that touches our community,

our neighbours and sometimes our own families.

Today I rise to celebrate an organization that is making a significant impact in the

midst of this challenging time in British Columbia: the Richmond Addiction Services

Society. On October 18, I had the privilege of attending the RASS annual general meeting

in my capacity as the MLA for Richmond North Centre. What I witnessed was nothing

short of inspiring.

[2:00 p.m.]

The Richmond Addiction Services Society is dedicated to providing vital support, resources

and programs to individuals and families who are grappling with addiction. What struck

me most was the unwavering dedication and passion shown by every member of the organization.

They are working so hard to realize their goal of preventing substance and behavioural

addictions while ensuring the delivery of programs and services to support individuals

and communities to achieve optimal health in all areas of life. This is truly commendable.

However, we must recognize that the vital work they do would not be possible without

the involvement of our dedicated community members. I would like to take a moment

to express my heartfelt gratitude to the volunteers within RASS and similar organizations

across British Columbia. These individuals work tirelessly to ensure their community's

safety and prosperity. For that, we are deeply grateful.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

K. Falcon: After seven years, the NDP's middle-class squeeze has made B.C. now the most unaffordable

province in the entire country, and it's getting worse every day.

Housing starts are now plummeting, major housing starts and projects are grinding

to a halt and future homes are vanishing, as sales of undeveloped residential land

have dropped off a cliff by 85 percent over the last 15 months. Now, to add to the

failure of this Premier's housing flub, most recently we've seen the loss of over

400 potential affordable housing units promised at the 104 Plaza in Surrey.

To recap, we've got a 36 percent increase in provincial bureaucracy, we've doubled

our provincial debt, we are facing the highest projected deficit in the history of

the province of British Columbia, all helping to drive inflationary construction costs

while decimating housing supply. Is this how the Premier defines success in housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, I would agree with the member that there are challenges we're facing here

in British Columbia. I would agree that some people are facing challenges when it

comes to housing. Two decades of underinvestment in housing, welcoming 240,000 people

to British Columbia — we simply have not been building enough housing to meet that

demand.

The member mentions a specific project in Surrey which we were providing financing

to. Of course, I'm sure the member knows that the rising interest rates, the actions

taken by the Bank of Canada, are having real impacts on projects, not-for-profit projects,

private sector projects, and folks are having to make decisions.

Certainly, that's why we've been advocating, urging, hoping that the Bank of Canada

doesn't continue to raise their rates, because it's having a real impact not only....

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Not only having an impact on families and their budgets, but also having an impact

on housing starts.

Now, the member is correct to say that housing starts have come down a little bit,

but I would also highlight to the member that they're still significantly higher than

when he was the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, I've got a message for the Housing Minister. Hope is not a plan. If you actually

want to get results, this Housing Minister better figure out how the housing sector

works, because after seven years of this Premier and this Housing Minister's leadership,

we've ended up with the most unaffordable housing in North America, the highest average

rents in the entire country and, to make it worse, a growing maze of NDP red tape

that continues to add to the housing costs.

I just want to refer the member to their community housing fund application, which

is supposed to be about affordable housing. This monstrosity comes in at almost 400

pages that will add about 30 percent to the cost of a typical affordable home.

Now, it's no surprise, given this kind of nonsense, that we've got only 15 percent

of the 114,000 promised affordable homes they were going to build that are actually

open today. An undeniable housing flub. As the size of the NDP bureaucracy explodes,

they continue to deliver worse results right across the board.

[2:05 p.m.]

My question to the minister: making housing affordable means making it less expensive,

so why would this Premier continue to add unnecessary red tape and cost to so-called

affordable housing?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, we've had some helpful debates in this place for British Columbians to understand

where the different parties are on the issue of housing. I don't think any illustrates

better where we are than what the opposition has been doing in relation to the short-term

rental legislation.

Here they spend every day they have, every opportunity they have to drive a hole through

to create loopholes for investors running private hotels in our province. Who are

the…? Whose…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: We say 90 days. They say 30. They say: "Well, what about big events? We should do

something about big events."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Premier, hold it.

Please.

Hon. D. Eby: You know, I would love to see the other side stand up…. I heard the Leader of the

Opposition say the problem in this province is that tenants have too many rights.

I would love to hear the other side…. They're quiet now. I would love to hear them

say something at some point to support real people looking for a place to live, which

our short-term rental legislation is going to do, which the speculation vacancy tax

did in getting rid of vacant homes and which our literally billions of dollars of

investment in affordable housing that they voted against every chance they had. It's

building for real people, and we're going to keep doing it.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, second supplemental.

K. Falcon: This coming from the condo king, who sold his own condo just mere weeks before we

saw the new speculation tax brought in.

Mr. Speaker: Hold it, Member.

Member. Member.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Let's be respectful. Using words like "condo king" and all that. Please try to avoid

that, okay? Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Nothing.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

K. Falcon: Well, the fact of the matter is the Premier, you'll notice, never talks about the

actual results they're achieving. It always turns into this. It's got to be the federal

government. Maybe it's the Bank of Canada governor. Maybe it's the opposition from

15 years ago. It's got to be anyone but his own record.

Message to the Premier: you've been in power now for seven years. You own this. You've

ended up with the highest housing affordability in North America.

What I'd like to do is quote the actual Housing Minister himself, who admitted: "Every

single project is going over budget, putting us further behind where we want to be

by 2030 for all the targets that CMHC has set for us."

That's what happened. That's what happens, my friend, when your housing plan is built

on hope, not reality. The highest rents, the worst housing affordability in North

America, and now we've got Metro Vancouver saying: "Let's triple the development cost

charges so we'll hammer families with up to $24,000 in new taxes for every new home

built."

As a premier, I can tell you this: I would block those outrageous tax hikes. Three

weeks ago, I asked the Premier to make the same commitment. He dodged the question.

So let's try this again.

Will the Premier block the $24,000 fee hike that will crush families who just want

the opportunity to get into affordable housing in British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker: All questions and comments through the Chair.

Hon. D. Eby: That member sat on this side of the House for a long time, and he was well aware,

well aware of the lengthy and maze-like processes of local governments, and he didn't

take any action.

We're taking action on these things. We're setting housing targets for local government.

We've got legislation coming — stay tuned — to smooth and ease the process at the

municipal level. Provincial level, we've cut permit process times by 33 percent around

housing.

We have 15 times more affordable housing underway today than when that member sat

on this side of the House. We're opening affordable housing at three times the rate

of their government when they sat on this side of the House. It would have taken them

28 years to do what we've done in just six years.

[2:10 p.m.]

Purpose-built rental construction is up 650 percent. Housing starts are up 70 percent.

Housing completions are up 50 percent.

Student housing. In 16 years, they built 130 student beds. We've built nearly 1,000

units.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I'll tell you what. The member wants to talk about results.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Member.

Hon. D. Eby: He wants to talk about the results they got when they were on this side of the House.

Well, their Finance Minister managed to buy not one, not two but three condos in the

same building and flip them for almost $1 million. Those are results.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

PROJECT IN VANCOUVER

K. Kirkpatrick: That is a hard act to follow. I would hope….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm not going to act. This is not

an act on this side. We're asking hard questions

that the other side does not answer.

If there's one project that's a poster child for the Premier's failure to cut through

taxes and red tape and fees, it's their hopelessly delayed yet supposed flagship affordable

housing and treatment centre at 1st and Clark in Vancouver.

Five years delayed. Not a single shovel in the ground, and costs have more than doubled

to $109 million. Now this is just another housing flub in a long line of failures

stuck in a web of taxes and NDP red tape. Five years ago. Zero progress. Costs more

than doubled.

This is a real question, a real question that needs a real answer. When will the project

actually be built by this minister?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Any day that….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The comedian from Kamloops has some comments.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

I ask both sides to be respectful, please. Both sides.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, we've highlighted already that there are some people that are facing real

challenges.

The members across the way make it sound like Vancouver didn't have the highest rents

in 2016, when they were on this side of the House. They did have the highest rents

in the country.

We've seen that British Columbia is a desirable place. People come here because there's

opportunity here. People come here because we have the strongest economy.

Now, what's different between when they were on this side and when we are on this

side is that we are actually funding….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's their time.

It's your time.

The difference is…. We're making actual investments in affordable housing. The member

will know that. The Leader of the Opposition will know that, when he was just recently

in Mission posting tweets about a project that actually got funding from the province.

Yeah. He was actually visiting a place that got funding from us.

I can list off all the projects in the members' communities that we're funding because

we want to make sure there's affordable housing for people that desperately need it

in our communities. We're going to continue to do that important work.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I think I'm going to have to look at the transcript now to see where, in that answer,

there is even the slightest relevance to the question that I asked. Enough talk. Where

are the shovels in the ground?

Les, stuck in a shelter for four years, is waiting for this project, under the NDP,

in Metro Vancouver. He is waiting for this project and warns: "Any day I could become

homeless again."

B.C.'s homelessness, as you know, is at an all-time high, skyrocketing 34 percent

under this NDP in Metro Vancouver alone. With record-breaking deficits, the NDP delivers

nothing but record-low results.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is a question. Every single promise and every single deadline for this project

broken by the NDP. When will this project actually be built?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member talks about results. I'll share some results for the members: 58 new, affordable

rental homes for families just opened in Victoria; 24 just opened up in Powell River;

20 new, affordable homes in Burnaby; and 55 in Campbell River.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: And 58 affordable rental units, right now, just opened in Vancouver last month, 43

opened up last month in Burnaby, 62 opened up in August in Nanaimo and 36 in Prince

George last month. Kamloops had another 14 open up in August. Vernon had 48. Vancouver

had another 60 open up in July.

I've got pages and pages of how many openings we're seeing throughout the province.

I don't think that…. If they had a record of actually building affordable housing,

I would take their questions more seriously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: They've got a short memory. They've forgotten when their Housing Minister on that

side said to people who couldn't find affordable housing in their community: "If you

can't afford it, simply move." We are taking a different approach. We're going to

continue to do that important work.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

A. Olsen: Health care continues to be a top priority of my constituents. On this Health Minister's

watch, the emergency room on the Saanich Peninsula is closed indefinitely in the evenings,

and walk-in clinics are closed or closing.

On Salt Spring, there is a critical lack of family doctors, no walk-in clinics, no

UPCC or the long-promised team-based primary care network. So the ER, Lady Minto,

becomes the de facto health care for all. On Saturna, residents are in a frustrating

health care bureaucratic vacuum.

This minister celebrates spending more money and gets worse results. It's my constituents

and the people who are working on the front line that are paying the price. When is

he going to admit that his approach in delivering the results for the people of the

of this province is not working?

Hon. A. Dix: Last year we put in place a health human resource plan, one that is delivering for

British Columbians. More than 5,300 more nurses registered this year with the College

of Nurses. Not my statistics — the facts from them. And 564 international medical

graduates approved this year and 66 primary care networks in British Columbia and

supports for communities across B.C.

There are challenges. There are challenges in many communities. But the way to resolve

those challenges is to increase the level of staffing across our system, to recruit

more nurses and to retain more nurses by supporting them in the workplace. That's

precisely what we're doing in his community and across B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: Access to health care is not improving in my communities. Access to health care is

getting worse in my communities. From what I'm hearing from British Columbian communities

right across this province….

This morning, the government caucus heard from the nurses about the dangerous impact

that staffing shortages are having in their workplace. I've heard how chronic nursing

shortages have left patients unattended. Seniors are left stranded in their beds with

no access to washroom or shower facilities. Families are hiring private care aides

for their loved ones in hospital.

My office is managing way more files than we should be that should be dealt with by

the patient quality care offices. But no results there. Patients are unnecessarily

filling hospital beds, because doctors are reluctant to release them back into the

community because there's no care for them there. Hospital staff have approached me,

exasperated, devastated, traumatized and fearful of speaking out, because they don't

believe this minister when he says that they're free to speak without reprisal.

In 2016, the ministry spent $17.95 billion on health care. In 2022, same ministry,

different minister, $26.38 billion, yet, somehow, we have worse results.

My question is to the Premier. The Health Minister spends more money for worse results.

It isn't working. At what point will this Premier say that enough is enough?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I did meet with nurses this morning. British Columbia is leading North America, one

of the leading jurisdictions in the world, in establishing nurse-to-patient ratios.

We're doing that by working with nurses, by developing plans and programs, working

with them to recruit more, and they're having some success. Those are directly funded,

for nurse-to-patient ratios over the next three years.

In our collective agreement, more funding for nurses, for education, for leadership;

more funding for opportunities for laddering and nurse communities; more funding,

$60 million, to support nurses in the workplace, to support issues of challenges they're

facing in the workplace.

This is practical, tangible action. We're not doing it, as we did with doctors, on

our own. We're doing it by working with nurses. That is the way to get solutions for

patients.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the last two questions and the last two answers…. That's a fine example of

how the question was asked, everybody listened and how the answer was provided.

House Leader of the Fourth Party.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Please, let's continue. Let's continue.

The member has the floor.

Member.

COST INCREASES FOR FARMERS AND

AFFORDABILITY OF LOCALLY GROWN FOOD

B. Banman: Yesterday our Conservative Party caucus met with the British Columbia Agriculture

Council. We heard loud and clear: B.C. farmers are concerned about the rising cost

of locally grown food.

We're one of the highest-cost jurisdictions in North America for farming. B.C. farmers

want B.C. families to pay less and get more farm-to-table, locally grown, healthy

food.

To the NDP Minister of Agriculture, can she name three pieces of red tape or taxes

— just three — that are out of date, unnecessary or could be cut or reformed by this

NDP government to find savings for British Columbia families and our farmers?

Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you, Member, for the question.

Farmers in B.C. have faced rising business costs, and we know this is also happening

across Canada and beyond, in multiple sectors. This is precisely why I spent much

of the past several months travelling around the province, speaking with farmers and

ranchers, so I could understand how my ministry could best support them.

We've made an historic $200 million investment into programs designed to support producers

based on their unique needs — programs that are working. This past summer we have

provided 186 farmers with over $7 million in targeted advance payments through our

AgriStability program.

We have also now secured an AgriRecovery package, working with the federal government,

that provides financial assistance to farmers who faced extraordinary expenses due

to this summer's drought and wildfires. Many times yesterday we were thanked for that.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. P. Alexis: In July, we requested the federal government to allow ranchers in flood- or drought-impacted…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. P. Alexis: …areas to defer a portion of their sale proceeds to the following tax year.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

The member has a supplemental.

RODENTICIDES IN AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

B. Banman: Let me say to the minister, what we heard from farmers was carbon tax, fuel tax and

ALR reform.

Yesterday we were also told by B.C. chicken farmers that the NDP's policy of reducing

rodenticides in chicken farms and food-processing plants will lead to an explosion

of rodents, hugely increasing the risk of salmonella outbreaks.

To the NDP Minister of Agriculture, why is this government putting British Columbians

at risk by allowing the rodent population to boom?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I wanted a chance to respond to this, because I met with a number of farmers in Boundary

country. Yesterday I got to meet with the leaders from the industry, and they're being

hit really hard by climate change. I know the member standing to ask that question

and his party are struggling really hard with whether or not climate change is real.

I'll read a quote from the leader of the Conservative Party. This is from an article,

CBC: "Asked directly if he believes climate change is real and caused by humans, the

leader of the Conservative Party declined to answer. 'I know you asked a very specific

question, but at this point, I'm not prepared to answer that question.'"

Now, if we want to support our farmers, I would start by recognizing that climate

change is real. Our farmers are hurting, and they need support, which is why we worked

with the feds to get $77 million for those farmers hurt by wildfire, hurt by drought.

That's why we're going to continue to work on supporting farmers.

I would encourage your party to figure out your position on climate change, because

farmers know it's real and so should you.

LYTTON FIRE RECOVERY PROCESS AND

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

T. Stone: A week ago during question period, the Minister of Emergency Management dropped a

bombshell saying that more than 7,000 artifacts, some dating back as far as 7,500

years, have been discovered in Lytton.

This revelation came as a complete surprise to Indigenous and non-Indigenous people

alike, including to the mayor of Lytton, who only learned of it through a YouTube

video from the B.C. Legislature.

My question to the minister is this. What is the process and timelines for residents

to be informed about any artifacts discovered on their property, when will they learn

if rebuilding is possible or not, and can the minister confirm that the province will

fully compensate those impacted by fees related to the discovery of these artifacts?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. Everyone recognizes the fires that devastated

Lytton were unprecedented in terms of completely wiping out the town, its entire infrastructure.

Rebuilding has been a slow process and a very frustrating one. I acknowledge that.

But the archaeological remains that have been discovered there date back 7,000 years.

The town at the confluence of the Thompson and Fraser rivers has been a historic settlement

place for Indigenous people for millennia. The town itself was built on top of an

ancient village, and when the reconstruction began, the requirements of the Heritage

Conservation Act required that the site be explored for archaeological remains, and

that has indeed been done.

Some of the results were communicated June 15 in a town hall meeting, saying that

ancestral remains had been discovered there, and that process continues. I met yesterday

by video with the mayor of Lytton, and she has made some suggestions about how we

might better achieve a satisfactory result and more progress in rebuilding.

L. Doerkson: Slow would certainly be an understatement. It's been 847 days since the fire. Not

a single home has been rebuilt in Lytton.

During a recent community meeting, this government showcased a slide that outlined

a staggering 42 steps, ranging from permits and forms to a labyrinth of committees

that individuals must navigate according to the archaeology branch's convoluted protocols.

Given last year's 11,000-permit backlog and a staggering 255-day average wait time

for archaeological permit processing, what concrete timelines can residents of Lytton

expect for their archaeological assessments?

Hon. B. Ralston: Again, in the meeting with the mayor yesterday, she confirmed that there are approximately

20 property owners who are expecting to rebuild and will begin very shortly.

The process has been long. It has been frustrating, but we are making progress, and

certainly, that's something that the mayor of Lytton acknowledged.

[2:30 p.m.]

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

P. Milobar: Let's be clear. Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities across this province want

to know what is next if something is found. Be it in Lytton, be it in Oak Bay, where

there are tons of historical lək̓ʷəŋən sites, what happens if somebody has a fire

and has to rebuild an individual home? Will they be subject in Oak Bay, where the

Indigenous Relations Minister lives, to the same conditions? Then what happens if

an artifact is actually found?

No one is disputing that archaeological work has to happen. But what has happened

under this government is an incredible delay and backlog on the processing of the

findings and whether or not people will be allowed to build on a site where something

has been found. What happens next once something is found? Indigenous communities

can't say. Municipalities can't say, and this province refuses to say.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

P. Milobar: The question to this government is…. With 11,000 permits backlogged at the archaeological

branch, with an average of 255 days of processing time right now — that's the average,

which means most are over 255 days — homeowners, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, in

this province simply want to know: what is the next step by this provincial government

when an artifact is found on somebody's property?

Hon. B. Ralston: The Heritage Conservation Act mandates a certain process when disasters occur, and

rebuilding is required. The process that is in place takes time. That's acknowledged.

The findings at Lytton were unanticipated.

I don't think people understood the richness of the archaeological findings there.

One commentator called it one of the richest archaeological deposits in North America.

So that process has been protracted, but progress is being made. The mayor of Lytton

clearly acknowledged that yesterday in our conversation.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Rustad: I rise to present a petition to the House from over 2,000 residents, business owners

and short-term rental operators in British Columbia regarding Bill 35, Short-Term

Rental Accommodations Act.

These petitioners respectfully request that the House consider specific stipulations

within the bill and maintain an open dialogue with all stakeholders involving, particularly,

the small-time investors and compliant property owners to explore balanced solutions

that address the housing challenges, while also respecting the rights and contributions

of compliant short-term rental operators.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call third reading on Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move third reading of Bill 36.

Mr. Speaker: Division has been called.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.]

Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023, read a third time and passed on the following

division.

yeas — 56

Alexis

Anderson

Babchuk

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 27

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Falcon

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole debate on Bill 31,

Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

In the third House, committee room C, I call Committee of the Whole debate, Bill 32,

Provincial Symbols and Honours Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West.

Question of Privilege

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Speaker. I'll keep this brief, but I do want, as a matter of privilege,

to place this on the record if you'll permit me.

I understand that the procedures in this House have evolved over time, and it has

now become far more commonplace than it once was to refer legislation to committees

— firstly, the Douglas Fir Room, and now what I call the attic up on the third floor.

I would only make this observation: the House, I think, has come to cross-purposes.

We have chosen to amend the rules where we recognize parties of a certain size. There

are now four parties represented in this House.

Logically, now half of the parties represented in this House will be precluded from

participating in debates on the creation of laws in British Columbia, because we will

have three sitting chambers. I do think that represents — maybe "assault" is too strong

a word — a compromise of the privilege and rights of members of this chamber, where

we have laws being debated at committee stage in three separate chambers.

[2:50 p.m.]

I urge the House — and, necessarily, the government and the Government House Leader

— to consider the implications of that situation, where members of this assembly,

in half of the parties represented here, cannot possibly participate in the creation

and debate of those laws.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the hon. member for his comments. I think he makes an interesting point, which

we certainly will consider and connect with the other House Leaders on as we move

forward.

[2:55 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL

ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

On clause 7 (continued) .

The Chair: All right, Members. We're here at committee stage on Bill 35. We were on clause 7

yesterday, so let's begin with clause 7.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm going to start this line of questioning with a comment. I have to say that I'm

very disappointed in the words of the Premier today in question period with respect

to what we're doing in this House during this committee stage. It was mocked. It was

referred to as if we are only asking questions and trying to find loopholes for private

investors.

If that is the position of this government, then what is the purpose of going through

this process? Is government saying to us that they are not listening to our questions,

that they will not consider proposals that we are making?

I can assure you that we are asking questions on behalf of all British Columbians,

which is our job as the official opposition. Comments like those made in question

period undermine this process. There are people watching us today who are nurses,

doctors, people in the film industry, people who make their living in this sector.

To joke and dismiss it, I found very troubling.

I am starting with that, and I'm certainly hoping that the minister and this government

will consider what we are saying here as being helpful and constructive, so that we

can create a better market for people in British Columbia and more homes for them

to live in.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'll start by saying nobody was laughing or joking. I don't agree with the assertion

made by the member. This is a serious issue.

We have people that are watching and that are also struggling to get housing. When

they see people buy three, four, five or six homes — they have the means to do it

and just put them on short-term rentals and do not make them available for people

who are desperately looking for places to rent — they also find it very frustrating.

I did share with the member yesterday, right off the bat, that we believe that the

amendments that were being suggested are loopholes which will make it more challenging

to ensure that we get housing back for people. I shared that with the member yesterday,

and the position still remains the same.

We always have a good exchange, the member and I, on all the bills, all the issues

we have. I certainly hope that that remains the tone for us, but I did want to clarify

that there was no joking. There was no laughing. Housing is a serious issue. We take

it very seriously. We know it's a challenge, not only in British Columbia but across

the country. That's why we think this legislation is so vitally important.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate the response, Minister. My blood pressure is still up, but I will continue

to be polite, and we can have a cordial conversation here.

If I can clarify now after that, Mr. Chair. We are on clause 7. Okay.

[3:00 p.m.]

When we finished yesterday, we were talking about what platforms would be required

to register. I would like the minister to please list all of the platforms that government

has identified.

Presumably as you were drafting this, government was anticipating and researching

all of those various platforms that would be impacted by this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, my answer, with all respect to the member, will be the same as I gave yesterday,

which is that there are some platforms that are more in the media — perhaps the name

has become more connected to the type of platforms that are in this space — but we

are not limiting it to specific platforms.

We know from our local government partners that they know on the ground which platforms

are operating in their communities. Our intention with this legislation is to say

that anyone that operates in this — not just the few that get named in the media,

but anyone operating in this space — has to follow the law of British Columbia, and

that's why this legislation is important.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate what you were saying. I find that the answer is vague, and I would just

like to explore a little bit more in terms of specifics.

I have to believe that when this legislation was being contemplated and drafted, there

was more specific identification of those platforms that need to be overseen and monitored.

Is there a specific list of those that government was aware of, that they wanted to

ensure were covered?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the legislation wasn't designed to target one company or two companies. The

legislation was designed to address a challenge in the system of housing we have.

I appreciate that the member wants a list of companies that I think would be captured

by this, but what I'm saying is that this legislation wasn't created to target one

specific company. It was meant to capture many platforms. It doesn't matter the name

of the platform. It doesn't matter which platform it is. All of them are captured

by this legislation, and all of them have to follow the rules of British Columbia.

K. Kirkpatrick: Forgive the pushing on this, but this sounds like a very vague answer.

If there are not a number of these platforms which are actually identified, I'm not

sure how we can look forward to compliance or ensure that there's oversight on these

platforms. I do imagine that when the definition of "platform" was being created,

there must have been discussion in the room about what those platforms look like,

which ones they are.

I would hope that there is a list that can be provided — the specific ones. I also

appreciate, Minister, that it may not have everything in there, but at least the subset

of those that have been recognized would be appreciated.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I want to emphasize this point. This legislation wasn't targeting a specific

company. It just needs to be re-emphasized. What it does do is focus on any platform

that has short-term rental listings on behalf of hosts, but also facilitates transactions,

including collecting and processing payments.

We can go back and forth all day, I guess, on this question, but fundamentally, we

weren't focused on one company or another. It was anyone that fits that criteria,

that fits under this.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, we will identify, through our local government partners, who operates in their

local community. As that work evolves, it's going to have some of the companies, which

are already in the media, that we know about. It's also going to have some of those

companies that were, maybe, just operating in a specific community.

I'm not going to get into naming whichever company we believe needs to be targeted

by this. This is about anyone that is operating in this space. When they operate in

this space, they should know the laws of the land. Our expectation is that they would

follow the law.

K. Kirkpatrick: I find that answer not satisfying, but I shall move on to some other questions.

In the same vein, will entities like Facebook and Craigslist be affected? What will

government do in the case where they see a surge in underground listings for vacation

rentals, as has been the case in New York City?

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, I don't foresee a massive switch.

I think New York is not a fair comparison. Most folks who, I think, assess what New

York did and how they moved on this question…. It was a very aggressive approach.

Essentially, they shut down all short-term rentals in New York, which drove a lot

of folks to find other ways to do it.

I think it's, again, important…. We just started the discussion today. It's important

for us to emphasize that short-term rentals are still available to people in people's

primary residences. That is an important piece to say here.

[3:10 p.m.]

It goes back to the question the member asked me earlier, which was: who gets captured

by this legislation? It's on behalf of the list of hosts that facilitate transactions,

including by collecting and processing payments.

Now, if a person decided that they were going to list their complete home on Facebook

— I think that's where the member is coming at — and is not registered…. We will be

able to find that home. The local government will be able to find it. The person of

that home would be issued a fine for not registering their property.

It would be required for a host to have the proper registration in place. Again, if

it's not their primary residence, then they wouldn't be able to get a permit.

K. Kirkpatrick: I've got a couple of questions out of that.

The basic one is…. As the minister says, municipalities will be aware of things that

are being advertised on Facebook. My understanding, then, is…. It's not the platform's

issue at that point; it's an unregistered host or a host who's not providing the services

in their own residence. I'm getting a nod. So I will take that as the correct answer.

Will the municipalities be required to be scrolling through Facebook and looking for

home rental sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We can go into this in

part 4, sections 19 to 31, in greater detail. That entire

section

is around the enforcement.

I'll try to give the member an answer. There are multiple ways. It could be complaint-driven.

It could be through an investigation. It could be through using technology, algorithms,

etc., to be able to capture that data. There are many tools available already. Many

folks that you see commenting on this, those doing research…. They use these algorithms

now to be able to assess what's on these platforms.

We'll be exploring all those buckets.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. New York, although you say it is not a fair comparison….

I do think looking at consumer behaviour, in terms of how people react to legislation

like this, is fair.

Wired.com says that in New York, people are using sites like Craigslist, Facebook,

Houfy— I've never even heard of that — and others, where they can search for guests

or places to book without the checks and balances of booking platforms like Airbnb.

In New York, they have raised an issue with respect to consumer protection now. Is

there anything around consumer protection, where these homes are now going onto these

underground sites?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the New York example, I would say…. It's too soon to see exactly what's happening

in New York.

I did read early articles saying that this is where folks are going. There's a Guardian

article now. I think today or yesterday that came out. It said that they haven't

really seen a big shift. It's all recent.

I'm not entirely sure what's happening in New York. They have taken a very, very aggressive

approach to, essentially, shut out short-term rentals completely. That is not what

we've done here in British Columbia.

I don't expect that this legislation will lead to an influx of STR listings to go

to these websites. Partly the reason why is…. When you have these types of websites,

where you can't verify who's on the other side and there's no payment transaction,

it makes it more challenging for folks, certainly, just to go there. So I don't see

that happening in a big way.

E. Sturko: In listening to this conversation and, certainly, having some concerns with analysis,

which either has or hasn't been done, looking at risks associated with, potentially,

people starting to list off of these types of Airbnb websites and going more towards

Craigslist or Facebook, these other types of things….

Recently there was a news

article that I saw — very concerning — related to someone

who was looking for a roommate free of charge. They were looking for a woman in exchange

for some type of friends-with-benefits arrangement. This person could receive housing

in Whistler. Disgusting. Unacceptable.

Something that I actually witnessed a lot as a police officer is…. As housing becomes

more scarce and opportunities for individuals become scarce, they do often look for

housing, I would say, on the black market. Vulnerable women, for example, put themselves

in situations so that they can have housing. That's a frightening thing to think about.

What type of analysis, if any, has been done by this government with respect to the

potential for people who currently are operating, let's say, an Airbnb platform…?

Because they're worried that they're going to lose money, they're not going to put

their house on the market or rent it for a long-term rental, but they will potentially

go over to different platforms that are harder for the government to trace.

What type of analysis has been done, in terms of public safety, to make sure that

we aren't actually putting people in British Columbia at risk of exploitation when

they're trying to look for accommodations for short terms?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member raising this concern. I, too, found that story that came out

disgusting. As the member highlighted, this one became public, but there are stories

like this that happen in communities. I, too, share the concern with the member.

I would say…. This is another reason why this is important legislation. That happened

regardless of this legislation. It happens in communities. We know that when there's

a lack of housing for people who live here in British Columbia, people become more

vulnerable. In particular, women and children become more vulnerable.

Getting more housing back into our housing market, I think, will help families that

are struggling. Many people that are looking for accommodation will have access to

housing that they don't have access to right now.

What we've seen, anyway, is…. The reason why I don't see an influx happening in that

direction is because most homeowners, I think, understand…. They would like to know

who's coming into their home, if they are going to rent it, even if they're going

to do it illegally.

There's a big risk already with short-term rentals. We see house parties and things

happening with hosts. You don't know who's coming in. It's a random person on Facebook.

I think those kinds of things will deter people from going in that direction.

[3:20 p.m.]

E. Sturko: It's funny to hear that reference to people who want to know who's going into their

house, and that they won't necessarily want to rent to someone that they don't know.

We hear some of these things from people in terms of long-term rentals and the problems

that they have with the Residential Tenancy Act, and that they don't want to necessarily

get into a long-term rental situation. Because you know what? When we do run into

trouble, it's very difficult to have someone removed who might be destroying property,

or when they get behind on payments.

It can put homeowners and people who are then renting their properties long-term into

some really dire financial straits when it comes to having to make up for mortgage

payments, potentially, on a rental suite that they can't make because of missed rental

payments — or when they're dealing with someone who might be causing tens of thousands

of dollars in damage. That's not something that people are just worried about when

they're dealing with an Airbnb. This is something that people are facing dealing with

long-term rentals in British Columbia.

I appreciate the minister's answer, but it wasn't the answer to the question that

I was asking.

The question that I'm really wondering and, with my background in public safety, one

of the things that I am concerned about is the potential…. People do make choices

when they're faced with financial stress. If they're worried that they're now being

forced by this government to sell another unit that they have that they've been using

for short-term rentals, instead of losing $100,000 on their investment, they might

turn to an alternate method of trying to rent that short term.

What analysis has this minister and the ministry done to ensure that these types of

more clandestine routes, I'm going to say, that people may take can be avoided and

that the public safety is taken into account in this legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, with this legislation, we're not forcing people to rent their suites. If a

person doesn't want to, they don't have to. There's no requirement to anyone.

Of course, we hear stories in the media. I, as Minister of Housing, hear stories about

some renters who are problematic. I hear stories about some landlords who are problematic.

But the majority of the people are in between, have good relationships with their

tenants, and there are no concerns. I think it's important to highlight that.

It's also important to highlight that by bringing more housing back onto the market

for people to have long-term rentals available, it helps more people who would be

vulnerable in an environment where there's not enough housing available to them.

That's why, in

part 4, in sections 19 to 32, when we talk about enforcement, you'll

see the measures we're taking to be able to enforce the rules to ensure that if anyone

tries to do this illegally — through Facebook, etc. — we're working to build mechanisms

to capture who they are and ensure that they have proper regulations in place, that

they follow the local regulations.

That is a fundamental challenge we have right now. We have people renting and not

following local government bylaws. Again,

part 4, sections 19 to 32 is where we talk

about enforcement. I'm happy to talk about that in greater detail in that section.

Now, I see, Chair, that you would like me to move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We are receiving a report from

Section C, so we will be coming back.

The committee rose at 3:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 32 — PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND

HONOURS AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 32, Provincial Symbols and Honours Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Act. In

Section C, I call

Environmental Management Amendment Act, Bill 29.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL

ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35; S Chandra Herbert in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:27 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. Now that that's dealt with, we're back to clause 7.

Clauses 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

K. Kirkpatrick: Who is responsible for authenticating registration and business licence numbers?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this section, it's the requirements, and in

section 17, it's how it will be validated.

I think the member is asking a question about

section 17, which links to this section.

[3:30 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I think this is relevant in either of those places, as this one is talking about the

requirement of actually being registered and having the business licence.

If the minister would prefer that I defer this question until…. Okay. Thank you.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wasn't trying to say to the member that it's actually in 17. I was saying that

section

17 is where the language is around….

Fundamentally, to the member's question, the host will be responsible for registering

and the platforms for validating the numbers. That information will, obviously, be

available both to local governments and to the platforms through the data-sharing

agreement section.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Then I actually will leave a couple of questions I have here. If I understand, the

other piece is more compliance, and that's where I can really get more into kind of

who's doing what.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

K. Kirkpatrick: I move the first amendment on clause 14 standing in my name on the order paper.

[ CLAUSE 14, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Principal residence requirement

(1) Subject to the regulations, if short-term rental accommodation services are provided

outside the exempt land in respect of a short-term rental offer, the short-term rental

accommodation services must not be provided except in one or both of the following :

(

a) in the property host’s principal residence ; , or

(

b) in not more than one of the following:

(

i) a secondary suite or other accessory dwelling unit that is in a prescribed location

in relation to the property host’s principal residence. , or

(ii) a residential property that is not a primary residence. ]

What we are doing is actually adding, so it is not just in the property host's principal

residence. We are adding the ability for one additional short-term rental to be owned

that may be outside of that residence.

On the amendment.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment.

We felt this was an important amendment. We were surprised, actually, with the way

that the legislation is written.

[3:35 p.m.]

If you think about it, government is, in this legislation, giving preference to those

people who own their own home and who are in a position to afford a home where they

have a secondary suite or they have an auxiliary building on their property.

What it is doing is actually hurting those people who may be renters in an apartment

or owners in an apartment and who do not have the capacity to afford a house with

a suite in it. They are being left out of this opportunity.

We've heard from many of these people who are renting. Their only ability to get into

the housing market…. As we know, we're in a housing crisis. The only way for them

to attempt to get their, I guess the term is, foot in the door with respect to ownership

is, as many have done in Victoria, the purpose-built short-term-rental units. They

will purchase one of those, and that is their opportunity to start to build equity

and participate in ownership.

One of the concerns that we wanted to flag, and one of the reasons we're putting this

amendment, is that we feel that it is unfair to those people who don't have the luxury

of actually having a single-family home with a suite.

Also concerned that now that the short-term rentals are coming off the market, which

are outside of people's principal residences, there will be pressure or opportunity

for more owners to rent out their secondary suites now as short-term rentals and displace

long-term renters who are currently in those spaces. This to me sounds like it could

potentially, if there wasn't some flexibility here, have the opposite impact as to

what government is intending to do.

The purpose of this legislation is to try and balance the playing field a bit, make

it a bit more level for those people who don't have the luxury of having a home with

a suite in it, and also to take away the potential — which, I think, is a valid concern

— that more people will then use their secondary suites for short-term rental, as

opposed to using them for long-term rental.

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I shared with the member, I did appreciate the amendments being shared with us

in advance, and I did share with the member that we didn't support the amendment.

First, this suggestion that people can buy an investment property and use it for short-term

rental is essentially the opposite of what we're trying to do here. I did refer to

it as a loophole. I'll still refer to it as a loophole, which will allow investors

to buy a property and put it on short-term rental, when we're trying desperately to

get more housing back into the housing market for long-term rental.

I do appreciate the member bringing this forward, but we disagree with the amendment.

E. Sturko: I would like to take an opportunity to speak to this amendment.

I just want to be really, really clear that I don't think anyone is in denial about

the fact that we're in a tremendous housing crisis, an affordability crisis. You'd

be scarce to find a single person in this House that would deny that we need to try

and find ways of getting people who've never had an opportunity to own their own home

into a home, people to be able to find affordable rentals, to make sure that students

have places to live, to make sure that newcomers to our province have places to live.

One of the things that's also concerning me, very much so, is with regard to that

desperation that…. The minister just mentioned a desperation to try to get more homes

released into the rental market and for sale. There's another flip side of the desperation,

as well, and it's actually with regard to some of the families that we're hearing

from. These are not families who are…. I wouldn't classify them as speculators. I

wouldn't say that they are even people who would have maybe, a few years ago, even

thought about getting into having a short-term rental or a secondary property.

[3:40 p.m.]

Some of the families that we're hearing from actually are doing this because without

this opportunity, they wouldn't be able to afford what they have. They wouldn't be

able to afford to have any income. Some of them have bought these very small, 200-square-foot

little bachelor pads that they use for short-term rental while they themselves might

be either renting or living with their family members.

In my community, it's not uncommon for people to live in multigenerational housing,

some of it because they wish to and some of it because they really just don't have

any place to go. While their growing family is staying with their family members,

they have this small income that they're able to generate that might help them to

actually be able to afford a down payment on an appropriate accommodation.

What's actually really disturbing to me is when we hear from families that are using

the money that they might be generating from short-term rentals and from renting out

things like their cottages because they needed to pay for services that are currently

not being covered by the government. I myself am a parent of a child with autism,

and not all of the services that my own child needs are covered by this government.

It's a struggle. It's a struggle to get things like diagnoses.

The reality is that many families who will be impacted.... We're talking about families.

We are not talking about people who.... Of course…. You know what? I think it's sick.

I think a lot of people would agree that it's sick that you would have someone who

would buy out an entire apartment and use it as a hotel. But I think that's not what

we're even discussing here. I don't think there's been any argument on behalf of the

official opposition to say that we're not for curtailing abuses of these types of

systems.

What we're talking about is supporting families, particularly because the worry that

myself and some of my other members that I serve with here on this side have discussed

— and received multiple communiqués from people in our constituencies — is that it's

going to have a detrimental impact on families who are without these incomes that

are really not scraping by very well. They're not able to make ends meet.

I also have some significant concerns, too, about the government's ability actually

to enforce. I understand that some more details on enforcement are coming, but I just

wanted to.... I'm sad that the amendments that my colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano,

has brought forward.... I think they're reasonable amendments, and this is where….

People can make performative speeches. When you're dealing with a government that

is a majority, even voting may not make the difference.

But where we can actually make a difference to make legislation, even contentious

legislation where, at the root of it, we all agree that we want to make sure that

people can find a place to live…. Then we need to be able to find those balanced approaches

to make sure that people who are being benefited to be able to survive in Canada's

most expensive cities are not being harmed, that there are no unintentional consequences.

The best way to do that is by being in this place and bringing forward amendments

that are in good faith, ones that are meant to serve the interests of our constituents

and your constituents, because I'm sure that even on the government side, there are

people who may be harmed by the unintended consequences of this legislation.

In terms of the ability for this government to track down those that would abuse the

system, even after the legislation comes in, I want to remind people of what happened

in 2020.

There was a woman, North Vancouver, she was operating a five-story condominium, a

townhouse. She had 15 rooms. She was operating as Oasis Hotel. To get this individual

to stop doing what she was doing, her illegal short-term rentals, her flophouse that

she was doing…. It took literally years in court — years in court, tens of thousands

of dollars in fees to try to stop this individual from running this illegal short-term

rental hotel. It took dozens of hours of court time. The individual dragged this court

proceeding out for years.

[3:45 p.m.]

People will probably remember it from the media. I believe that this is still a case

before the courts, because they're going to try to now seize this individual's home

to try to get compliance.

This is just one individual. When we're talking about looking after an entire province

of individuals who…. Not necessarily even because they're evil or bad people but because

desperation breeds, sometimes, desperate actions by individuals. We can see examples

of that all the time — like I said, people who wouldn't necessarily enter into this

type of business arrangement.

They wouldn't necessarily have considered having a short-term rental, but their ability

to save up, for example, a down payment for a family home that has the appropriate

amount of bedrooms, that's bigger than a "200 square foot with a hot plate"–type deal….

People who are looking to have to supplement health care for family members because

of our health care crisis. People who may be trying to afford things like getting

treatment and recovery through private providers because it's not provided free by

this government for some reason. But I digress. However, there are multiple reasons

why people in this province might need that supplemental income.

I think that this amendment that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano has put forward

is not outrageous. I don't consider it a loophole. Loopholes are things that are to

be taken advantage of. That's the whole idea behind the concept of a loophole. It's

a little tiny sliver that, you know, the evildoer can slide through and take advantage

of a system.

But what my colleague is proposing is that this government take a more balanced approach

to looking at individuals who may, for example, dwell in apartment complexes, townhome

complexes where they may not have the same opportunity as people that live in a house

with a coach house out back. That doesn't create an even playing field, and it actually

disproportionately is impacting people who may be in lower income brackets because….

I mean, in my community right now, the townhouse complex that I live in — and honestly,

a family of five is squeezed into this sucker — is a million dollars. I do not know….

I'm not disagreeing with this government in terms of our need to be able to find housing.

But there's been every opportunity over the last near-seven years now for things to

be done, for opportunities to move housing forward, to make housing less expensive,

that did not also come at the rights of property owners who were law-abiding, who

followed the rules.

Regardless of whether we think it's ethical or not to own multiple units, people didn't

break the law by doing that. Whether it's a moral question of hoarding housing for

a business opportunity during a housing crisis, well, that's another question that

can be debated. But they didn't do anything illegal. They followed the law. They purchased

and legally acquired property that would have to be compliant with zoning and have

to be compliant with its intended use — obtain licences, go through processes that

would require them to meet certain specifications.

Then, now, as a result of this government's inaction on housing for the last seven

years, people are going to be hurt. Because there are people for whom…. Now that the

bottom will fall out, essentially, of the short-term rental market, their properties

may not be worth what they owe. That's a huge part of the communications that we're

getting from people who are writing in to the constits. They don't even disagree that:

"Oh, it'd be great. We need more housing for people." They're not greedy people. They're

people that are just like…. Now they're freaking out. They're worried, and I share

their concern.

What if now they have to sell a condo because, without that short-term rental, they

cannot afford it, even though they're living with their parents? And this short-term

rental was helping them save for their down payment for their own place. Now they're

going to have to get rid of it, and it could come at a loss because — guess what —

the bottom fell out of their ability to market it as a short-term rental.

Who's going to pay if they lose $100,000 on that? Is it going to come out of the pockets

of people that work in the Ministry of Housing? No.

[3:50 p.m.]

It's going to come out of the pockets and the futures of people who were law-abiding.

They did everything right. They saved up. They scraped together what they could so

that they could build something for themselves, a little nest egg, to help build them

up.

Property ownership — you don't often start off by buying a massive mansion. You start

off…. Many people, including myself…. I started off with a house that was $50,000.

I had to live in Winnipeg to get it, but you know, that's another story. You start

small. You build that equity. For a number of people who are writing into our constituencies,

that ability to build that equity is being taken away. Worse than that, they're seeing

now that any equity or savings that they had been able to build up are going to disappear.

I want to make sure that I'm clear. In no way is the message that I'm delivering to

this government one that says that I want to see people hoarding housing and profiteering

off of the shortage of housing so that people suffer and become homeless. Absolutely

not. That's the opposite. I want people to get housing.

I also have a responsibility to the people in my community who are involved in short-term

rentals and are not asking to be able to have tens and 20 — have this, like, Oasis

hotel with five floors and 15 illegal suites in it. They're talking about people that

live on a farm with their parents. They want to be able to afford to buy their own

townhouse. Like I said, in my community, a townhouse with three bedrooms is $1 million.

How do you save even a down payment for that? It'd take you 38 years, according to

the Bank of Canada. Honestly, they're just looking for an opportunity.

I'm not here defending people that would take advantage of the system. I'm here talking

about the everyday person who now is extremely worried. I hope that the minister will,

please, take a look at this amendment proposed by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

I think it's reasonable. It is meant to even the playing field. It is meant to help

protect those families with that one unit so that they can build that equity and have

an opportunity to participate in our housing ecosystem.

You know, I would say that, as I mentioned earlier, the best we can do when we're

facing a majority government that has the ability to, regardless of looking at amendments,

ram through legislation, regardless of the concerns of our constituents.

Our work to make sure that British Columbians are represented fairly is by introducing

fair and reasonable amendments to legislation to make sure that the best interests

of all British Columbians are taken into account — those that are struggling to find

housing and those that are trying to build up equity and who are, through no fault

of their own, being penalized after legally acquiring a suite to be able to do better

for themselves and their family.

Thanks for the time.

A. Walker: I think I surprise my colleagues here by speaking to this amendment. I just want to

say that, while I don't support the amendment, I do very much appreciate that the

member for West Vancouver–Capilano brought this forward.

The concerns that we're hearing from constituents who own one other unit in buildings

that are designated, through their local government, for short-term rentals, that

have invested a significant amount of their equity into that, a unit that if it is

converted into a multifamily residential unit probably won't contribute to rental

stock or new housing stock…. These units that I'm hearing about, the same emails that

members are hearing about, are not suitable generally for people to live in year-round.

I will be very brief, but I just wanted to…. While I don't support the amendment,

I think that this is a way of having a conversation to address some of the concerns

that we've heard. I just want to commend the opposition for bringing this forward

so that this discussion could take place.

N. Letnick: First of all, I'd like to say that I do support the amendment. I think it's a very,

very good amendment. My conversation with the minister will be in a series of questions.

I will be asking questions, and hopefully the minister will answer those questions.

[3:55 p.m.]

This is not just a 15-minute debate speech on my part, so I just want to clarify with

you. As is the case with the committee stage, may I ask questions of the minister,

or am I just expected to talk for as long as I want and then sit down, with no response

from the minister?

Deputy Speaker: You can ask questions, yes.

N. Letnick: I can ask questions. All right. Well, I'll ask those questions, and I hope that the

minister will respond as I ask the questions. He doesn't have to, of course, but I

just want to frame it that way. I'm not trying to make a filibuster speech and then

sit down. I would like to actually get into the question-and-answer piece.

My first question is this, because this amendment will actually address some of the

issues that are happening in my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country. UBC Okanagan is in

my riding. I've received a lot of letters, both for the proposed legislation that

the government has brought in and opposed, also some offering some suggestions.

In this particular case, with this amendment, I think it would address this particular

issue, which is that a lot of students are saying that this is the only way they can

afford housing, whereby they are in their apartments for eight months of the year

while they're going to university. Then the owners of the apartments are then renting

out those apartments for the four months on some kind of social platform like Airbnb

or some of the other ones. By doing so, they're able to keep the rents for the students

as low as possible.

Clearly, if a unit became available to the full-time rental market year-round, those

landlords would not be able to encourage the tenants to leave in time for the students

to come in the unit. Basically, they would be removed from the marketplace for those

students, and those students would have nowhere to go.

My first question to the minister is: what do we do about this unintended consequence?

This is a real consequence, because a lot of the buildings around UBC Okanagan were

built specifically with this model in mind, that the students would occupy them during

the school year, and then for the rest of those summer months, they'd be occupied

by short-term rentals. What do we do? What do we tell those students? That's my first

question.

The Chair: Member.

N. Letnick: I didn't get an answer to the question, so I'll go on to the next question. Then I'll

sit down and wait for another answer. Every time I do that, the clock will start over

at 15 minutes, so I can actually be here for hours. I think it'd be better if…. But,

anyway, that's up to the minister to decide how he wants to answer those questions.

My second question is to deal with these units that are actually very, very small.

They were designed with students in mind, designed so that they are only maybe 250

to 300 square feet. There's no way that anybody else, any family, would want to move

into these units on a full-time basis. Since they don't want to move into these units

on a full-time basis, they will sit practically empty most of the time, if not forever.

Obviously, people who have built these units or purchased these units will be faced

with some decisions, either to leave them empty, hoping for a change in policy down

the road, or sell them, of course, at a loss.

Again, my second question to the minister is: how do we make sure…? This amendment

would address that, by allowing for people to have more than their own home. They

can actually go out and get a unit. What would the minister say to those owners that

now have an empty unit or have to take a loss on those units because the students,

when they move out, the people who move in just can't live in such a small place on

a year-round basis?

The Chair: Member.

N. Letnick: We'll start the clock again. This is an interesting process.

My third question is to do with tourism. We have many, many situations in Kelowna

where we invite people to hold conventions, and we don't have enough hotel accommodation.

Since the pandemic, the hotel accommodation prices have been very, very high.

So what do we do with all these events that are coming, or are hoped that we can get

them to our location, if we tell the existing owners on Airbnb and other similar platforms

that they're going to have to basically sell their units or convert them to full-time

year-round rental housing.

[4:00 p.m.]

In that case, we'll lose the capacity to provide those people that are coming to the

central Okanagan, in particular my riding, with an opportunity to have accommodation

while they're coming to the unit.

I would suggest to the minister that this amendment would actually address that quite

well. This amendment would then allow people who aren't in the business of using Airbnb

as an investment tool or who have six or ten of these units, but just a ma and pa

or the young student who's trying to get a leg up and get into the market themselves

of owning a home or being able to subsidize their income a little bit… This would

also address not only their needs but also address the needs of the community at large

and the tourism community at large.

You don't usually get a big announcement in the newspaper that says: "This exhibition

has decided not to go to a place because they can't find accommodation." Usually,

they just quietly go somewhere else. That somewhere else, I'm afraid, will be Alberta

or any other jurisdiction that does provide an adequate inventory of short-term rentals.

Again, I would suggest that the amendment that's on the floor would help to address

that in giving people that opportunity to find accommodation.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'm going to try to answer some of the questions the member raised.

First, the question was: what do we do for students? The answer is that you build

student housing. I mean, we haven't been building enough student housing in British

Columbia. We have communities throughout the province where there's a real shortage.

We funded 220 beds at that campus that the member is talking about. We need, obviously,

more opportunities there, in communities throughout the province.

Now, I said that this was a loophole, and I'll mention again why it's a loophole.

We have a building a few blocks from here that has 121 units, and 90 units of that

are estimated to be short-term rentals. If 90 of these units are short-term rentals,

all 90 people could make the argument that this is their one investment property.

Our goal is to try to bring more housing back to the long-term market. So the reason

why this is a loophole is that everyone will have one investment property they want

for short-term rentals, and it doesn't get us the amount of housing we need back that

we desperately need in our community. That's why I was referring to this as a loophole.

That's why we can't support it. But for students, we need to build housing.

The member also made a comment about tourism. I'll share with the member that the

mayor of Kelowna said: "The need is great. As an example, we regularly hear from our

tourism industry the challenges of their staff in finding housing. This will go a

long way to change that situation and many similar housing challenges in our community."

It's responsive to the mayor and the concerns that he's been hearing from the tourism

industry. Again, short-term rentals will still be available for people, which I know

is important for the tourism industry in Kelowna.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his answers through this process. I don't, obviously,

agree with the answers, but that's the nature of the game.

The minister is the minister, and I won't spend a lot of time to rebut what the minister

has said other than just to focus his attention again on the issue of the existing

housing that's been built around UBC Okanagan. A lot of it is too small for long-term

renters.

Yes, they can go and build more student housing. But that is not going to solve the

issue of these particular units that are owned by other people unless, of course,

the minister is proposing to purchase these units from the people that built them.

If that's the minister's proposal, then we should hear about this grandfathering clause

or this quasi-expropriation clause that the minister is referring to.

I don't want to put words in the minister's mouth. I have too much respect for every

member of this House to do that. But, again, we are talking about a number of units

that have been specifically built for students in mind and for short-term rentals

when those students are not in those units.

They will not go on the long-term rental market for many reasons, one of which is

that the Residential Tenancy Act will not allow the landlord to evict a tenant in

the case of saying: "Well, now we need them for the fall and the winter session for

our students." That's not going to work.

[4:05 p.m.]

I'm not suggesting we should give the landlord tenancy act that ability. I'm just

saying that the way the law is right now, it is definitely not available to landlords

who want to remove a tenant in many, many cases, and in this case as well, unless,

of course, the minister is proposing to look at that part of the landlord tenancy

act, but then that wouldn't be fair to the people who buy these units and move into

them, right?

Here we are in a situation where we have buildings that were specifically built with

small units in mind, following all the rules of the day, paying all the proper fees,

getting all the right zoning, were even encouraged by the city of Kelowna to build

in this way, and now we come in and we say, "Well, too bad, so sad. You're not going

to have students in there anymore because you won't be able to have Airbnb during

the summer, and therefore you won't be able to afford to have the lower rates for

the students in the rest of the year."

If the minister can specifically deal with this issue coming from some of my constituents,

I would appreciate that. And then after that, I do have a few more questions for the

minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I've got a great deal of respect for the member, so I'll stress a couple of

points.

The vacancy rate in Kelowna is 0.9 percent, which is ridiculous. It's a real challenge.

West Kelowna and Kelowna have a principal residence requirement already. So anyone

that is renting a property in Kelowna or West Kelowna that is not their principal

residence wouldn't be following the law, because the law there is principal residence.

I appreciate the member has been getting correspondence. I've been tagged on a lot

of the correspondence. In fact, I've got correspondence here from a person who said….

It was addressed to us both. I won't say the name, but you'll know once I read it

to you.

It says, "We are so grateful for your support for this bill. We realize you'll hear

from many angry investors and just wanted to provide you with an account of how this

has impacted our family. We don't need more Airbnbs, we need more housing for families

like ours who work hard and just want a place to call home."

That's what we're fundamentally trying do. We're trying to get more housing for people

in our communities. I respect that we're not going to agree on this, but I hope we

can agree that getting more housing back on the market for people in our communities

is a good thing.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

Since he did bring in a letter that was sent to both of us, and I know we all have

received letters, usually addressed to every member of the House, I'd like to read

part of a letter that I and everybody else received — it's not in the record — just

to bring home the point of how this legislation, if the amendment isn't accepted,

will impact real people in our province.

"Good morning. My name is…. My journey to acquire my first condo was long and a challenging

one. At that time, I had the option to choose a more affordable condo priced at X

number of dollars, but I had bigger aspirations. I attribute my inspiration to my

family, who had operated a bed and breakfast for over 25 years.

"When my mother finally retired, platforms like Airbnb were just beginning to emerge

and gain popularity. As a millennial with a fresh perspective, I began to explore

unconventional possibilities, and through the beginning stages of looking at properties,

I started learning more about Victoria's legal non-conforming buildings.

"As I continued to learn, it became increasingly evident that this path could not

only allow me to carry on the family legacy but also embark on my own entrepreneurial

journey. Even though my family, who had endured the relentless demands of the tourism

industry, initially struggled to comprehend my vision and attempted to discourage

me, I remained steadfast in my conviction. I knew in my gut that this innovative platform,

coupled with technological advancements, would offer me a level of flexibility that,

unfortunately, they had never had, and in the end, I was proven right.

"However, purchasing a condo in these buildings came at a premium, a cost I was more

than willing to pay, acquiring the zoning necessary to realize my vision. During the

time of purchase, I was also in the middle of finishing my degree. It was during this

period that another idea struck me. Given that I had purchased a property in a zoned

building, I thought about the financial benefit of living six months at my mom's place

during the peak season and utilizing it as an Airbnb rental during this time.

[4:10 p.m.]

"It allowed me to pay for my mortgage while also completing my university degree with

minimal debt. I felt a sense of pride in my accomplishments, and I could see things

were finally going to start paying off.

"Bill 35 threatens everything I have worked for, worked hard for. This past week,

I find myself on the verge of tears and, ultimately, hopelessness. All I want to do

is share my story. However, I'm hesitant because of how the media and the majority

of the government has portrayed us. Despite the ugly descriptions, I am not a wealthy

investor with an expansive real estate portfolio, nor am I someone who doesn't care

about the housing crisis. What I am is a millennial, and this property is my only

asset, an asset that took years of self-discipline and self-sacrifice to acquire.

"It's an understatement to say that living in today's world is expensive, with inflation

and astronomical mortgage rates without any foreseeable relief in sight. I'd like

to reiterate that I purchased my property at a premium price. What was once affordable

quickly turned, and these days I'm just trying to keep my head above water.

"My one saving grace is the fact that my partner graciously shares his space with

me, allowing me to utilize my property as an Airbnb. I can't stress enough how crucial

it is for me to maintain this income source. I've never been deeply involved in Canadian

politics, but now it consumes my every thought.

"STR owners with grandfathered transient zoning in legal non-conforming buildings

should not be punished for following the law. The majority of us are local, love tourism

and are vested in our cities. If I had known that my property rights would be taken

away, I would have chosen a much more affordable condo to begin with, saving many

tireless years, and avoided this predicament entirely. As you know, punishing those

who follow the law and revoking the rights of those who have acted within the legal

framework sets a dangerous precedent."

She goes on to say other things that may disclose who she is, so I won't read those

out. There are other letters, many other letters.

Of all the other amendments that we've proposed, this amendment would help to address

the issues that are a lot being created through this legislation — unintended issues.

I've seen many, many laws come through this place over the years, and everybody tries

to do the same thing: reduce the unintended consequences. Reduce the unintended consequences,

because it's so easy in this place to think about a law and think about how it's going

to help people and not think about the ways it's going to hurt.

There's a lot of hurt in this bill. And this amendment would address most of that

hurt. Therefore, I would urge the minister and all of my colleagues in this House,

on both sides of the House, to support the amendment and reduce the unintended consequences.

P. Milobar: I rise to speak to the amendment on clause 14. I'd just like to raise some points

around this because I think what's getting lost in this conversation around this amendment,

specifically, is.... We heard the Premier today talking, characterizing….

Trying to look out for big investors that have, you know, 50, 60, 100 Airbnbs — well,

this amendment doesn't do that. This amendment says that you're allowed one unit in

addition to your principal residence. So that takes that whole boogeyman kind of narrative

out of the equation.

It's important, I think.... The minister may say: "Well, it would be very hard to

track." Well, this government has implemented so many different layers of rules and

regulations and laws on people on how you have to register your property that the

cross-reference check, in this day and age of AI, really wouldn't be that hard to

track because of all the registrations that we've had to do, in terms of our tax forms

and the shifting of the homeowner's grant and everything else and all the information

government is starting to collect around homeownership and who owns a property.

They have actually gone out of their way to collect this massive amount of data, so

let's use it for something that actually won't be too punitive for people that simply

would like to have that second unit.

[4:15 p.m.]

The minister talks about students and how this will actually benefit students. Well,

it won't benefit students, because as we've heard, if a student leaves in May or June

when their courses end and they're not coming back till September, that landlord will

no longer have the ability because somebody will move in in June. Unless the tenant,

by choice, decides to leave in September, the landlord legally will not be allowed

to have that tenant leave.

Yes, somebody else that is looking for a long-term rental will benefit, absolutely.

But students will also feel the pain of this, because it's the law of unintended consequences.

You can see that because, when you layer this with the rental tenancy branch and their

rules, it doesn't create the situation the minister is talking about. It simply can't.

It would be illegal.

That's a problem. Then you look at how…. With this wording of this existing bill,

who does this actually benefit?

The government is saying two things. If you're a large, multinational hotel corporation,

we've set up a set of rules for you that you're going to love. If you own a single-family

home on a detached lot, you're going to love these new Airbnb short-term rental rules.

But if you live in a condo…. If you live in an apartment-style condo building, you're

SOL for an STR.

Even if you want to buy the unit right next door to you, it will have two separate

deeds, two separate titles. You won't be allowed, if you live in an apartment-style

condo building, to buy the condo right next door to you even if the building was willing

to allow unlimited rentals and have an Airbnb concierge. Kind of like the Juliet in

Victoria, the building the Premier used to own a building in and marketed it as such

when he sold it in 2019.

I would point out this government in 2019 was already engaged with the UBCM around

developing rules for short-term rentals. That had started back in 2018. That report

on how to deal with short-term rentals actually came forward to government in 2021

when the Premier was actually the Housing Minister.

That report sat and collected dust with government for two years because the Premier

decided to get in the middle of a leadership race. For two years, the government sat

on that report watching the housing crisis get worse and worse and worse. And then

we're left here today with Bill 35, and another finger-pointing exercise by the government

instead of taking responsibility for them sitting on their own hands.

We have created a situation with this government's piece of legislation that says

if you own a freestanding single-family home, you will be the only ones allowed to

have Airbnbs. You can build a carriage house on your property or you can have a basement

suite.

Basement suites, which are typically the lower-cost housing accommodation for people

that are on a monthly long-term rental.

But the pressure for those suites to turn into short-term rentals is going to skyrocket,

because people will realize they won't be tied to the rules of the rental tenancy

branch for a longer-term tenant. They can make the same, if not significantly more,

by going into the nightly rental market and going through the process over the next

five or six months as this becomes law in May.

Our lower-cost basement suites will no longer be for long-term rents, which pushes

people to the apartment-style condo of previous Airbnb rentals. The sheer economics

of those are going to mean people will now be facing $3,000 and $4,000 and $5,000

monthly rents after being evicted out of their basement suites because of this legislation.

[4:20 p.m.]

Again, the government is deciding that if you live in a single-family detached home….

The same people that.… Renters and others are saying, "You bought your house in 1969"

— you see all the memes — "for seven almonds and a pack of tic tacs, and now it's

worth $2½ million." This government is now saying: "Oh, by the way, you can also be

the only people that can have short-term rentals anymore in this province."

Our amendment is just trying to make that equal. We're saying that if the single-family

homeowner is allowed to have one short-term rental on their property, why should the

apartment-style condo owner not be entitled to have one unit for a short-term rental

somewhere?

Not ten, not 50, not like the union pension funds that likely have banks of short-term

rentals in their real estate portfolios, because that's their responsibility — to

find a good rate of return of other investments for their pension fund holders. I

don't begrudge them doing that. But they own apartment buildings. They own lots of

real estate, as do all pension funds, because that's what they're supposed to do.

So they're doing their fiduciary duties.

I'm not worried that they might have to recalibrate their business plan. I understand

that. But to not see the flaw in this legislation that is saying if you live in a

multi-million-dollar single-family home, you have now been conferred the exclusive

right by this government to have a short-term rental, but if you live in an entry-level

apartment-style condo and want to buy the entry-level apartment-style condo next door

to you to try to get ahead a little bit so you might be able to eventually afford

a freestanding home, you're not allowed to do that. Government knows best.

Then the minister was talking about Kelowna and the tourism industry having a shortage

of space for workers to live. I totally agree. He's 100 percent right. Then why, in

this legislation, did they remove resort communities from short-term rental restrictions?

Resort communities are all based on tourism. All have massive shortages for housing

for their workers. All of them do.

And yes, the housing in those areas is incredibly expensive and owned by very wealthy

people — absolutely. But the workers there are getting paid workers' wages, and that's

why they have struggles finding housing in those areas.

So the minister has already recognized that there's a need for larger numbers of short-term

rentals, but not if you're a resort worker, not if you live in a town that's 10,000

people or less where there are still housing shortages and very expensive rents. That's

okay. Not if you live in the unincorporated areas, as the member from Parksville pointed

out yesterday, that surround cities, and outside of Metro Vancouver, there are a lot

of those areas.

Just outside of Kamloops…. You can drive longer inside the city boundaries in Kamloops,

neighbourhood to neighbourhood, to get downtown than it would take you to drive from

the outskirts of town, where they're still in the unincorporated areas, large nodes

of population. They're all okay, but the urban area is not, or the suburban area in

those cities is not.

That's the fundamental flaw with this legislation. It's not going to actually solve

what the government is marketing, because if it did, ask yourself why they are going

to sit on this for the next — what is it? — eight months before it's implemented.

They started doing a report in 2018. It got finalized in 2021 when the now Premier

was the Housing Minister, with UBCM. No action taken for two years. Now it comes forward

two years later. "Oh, and let's sit on the implementation for another eight months."

[4:25 p.m.]

So just from the time the report was finalized, when the Premier was the Housing Minister,

to the implementation of this will be almost three years. But this is going to solve

the housing affordability crisis for people, according to the minister and this government.

That's why they're going to sit for another eight months to implementation. Convenient,

when the writ will be dropped in about another ten months or so, 10½ months. Very

convenient timing to talk about how this is going to transform housing in British

Columbia. Very little time for the public to actually understand and see it in practice

— be it for medical travel, as we've talked about; special events, as we will be talking

about.

To bring forward an amendment like we have that simply says the style of housing that

your primary residence is should not dictate whether you have the legal right to have

a second area that is considered short-term rental…. That's essentially what our amendment

says. It says that if you live in an apartment-style condo, you have the same right

to one short-term rental space; the same as if you live on a piece of free title freehold

land — single-family dwelling, detached home.

It's shocking, after seven years of this government characterizing people that have

had the audacity to live in a freestanding single-family home in this province, that

this bill will now confer the ultimate privilege to somebody that lives in that style

of housing while punishing anyone else that wants to literally have the same mix within

their real estate holdings.

I say holdings, because those pension funds I talked about — they're highly unlikely

to mass sell off any Airbnbs they have. They'll just roll those to long-term rentals.

Absolutely. That's not a bad thing. That will put some units back on the market. It

will address some of the problems around people that have hundreds or 30 or 40 Airbnb

units, but that's not what our amendment is trying to do.

Our amendment is not trying to confer a benefit to them. Our amendment is trying to

rebalance the benefit and the privilege this government is trying to extend to people

that live on single family lots at the expense of everyone else that lives in an apartment-style

condo building who will no longer have the ability to do as a citizen and as a taxpayer

in British Columbia. It's fundamentally wrong.

That's why the government needs to admit they erred, support the amendment and bring

some semblance of fairness to a very flawed piece of legislation to begin with. While

they're at it, they could consider maybe not taking eight months to implement, if

they actually pass, this piece of legislation.

E. Ross: I've been watching the debate on Bill 35, the Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act,

but I've been watching the debate for the last six years in terms of the housing crisis

that we have been experienced in B.C.

Not quite sure, in terms of the progress that we've made across the board in terms

of addressing the housing issue here in B.C. We keep hearing the terms of the highest

rental rates in Canada and the highest housing costs in North America. I do understand

what this side of the House has been saying for the last six years — that you have

to address supply. You have to address it, but I think what we're talking about on

this side of the House is that you've got to build that supply.

Because really, a lot of the speeches I've heard in this House is actually not talking

about building per se, but talking about trying to change the nature of existing structures

to provide more housing, which I can understand as well.

[4:30 p.m.]

But it's actually put a lot of pressure, undue pressure for that matter, on citizens

that have been following the rules and following the laws of B.C. and Canada up to

now. It was a freedom of homeowners and property owners to do what they would with

the properties that they invested in.

Now, I understand the nature of Bill 35 is to achieve more accommodations, but there's

a difference of opinion on whether or not Bill 35 will accomplish that.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The one thing that I'll point out is that we will not know what type of an impact

Bill 35 will have on the housing crisis in B.C. because, like other bills, it's a

delayed impact. This won't be implemented until May. So if it's a crisis…. We still

have to wait till 2024 for implementation, and then maybe we'll need another six months

to maybe a year to see the effects. Right?

Interjection.

E. Ross: Or an election, yes. Hmm. Good timing.

But in the meantime, there are a lot of questions that are being asked by people that

were not trying to find loopholes. They were not trying to skirt the system. They

were basically just regular property owners that, by the way, were fulfilling a need

in B.C.

I was watching the very impassioned speeches by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

The urban ridings, right? The Big Smoke.

You know, there are certain regions of the province that have more to lose with Bill

35 in terms of this legislation, which will basically restrict the ability of people

to operate bed-and-breakfasts. There are certain areas, for example, in the urban

setting. But there are also places in rural B.C. that use it as part of their strategy

for tourism, for example.

I do agree with the member from Capilano, as well as the previous speaker, talking

about the hardship that it puts on rural people. Coming from Skeena, meaning the people

living in Terrace, Kitimat, Nisga'a, Kitamaat Village, Kitsumkalum, Kitselas…. We

are already at a disadvantage in terms of being located so far away from specialized

services.

I understand it's just the nature of how we're set up here in terms of services, specifically

medical services. But it's a cost that a lot of our constituents can't maintain, especially

when you consider somebody from our riding coming from Terrace, puts their life on

hold, books….

The Chair: Sorry, Member. Can the member help the Chair understand the connection to the proposed

amendment?

E. Ross: Yes. In terms of